Bacchus Posted October 15, 2004 Report Posted October 15, 2004 A coalition of medias joinded together and held polls around the world from Canada to Australia. The idea came from a discussion between marketing /comms pros who were wondering about the USA: since the US of A are acting like the world police and that any decision made by the pres can affect the world, what would happen if all free countries were to vote for an american pres? here are the results (i believe you can find them in a lot of medias from the Guardian, Le Monde, etc.): poll results thoughts?
»nintendo64 Posted October 15, 2004 Report Posted October 15, 2004 The results of the poll were as i thought, but i was little suprised with some of the countries supporting my views.
MasterDrake Posted October 15, 2004 Report Posted October 15, 2004 its to bad I could give a !@#$%^&* less what you all think , if you wanna participate in the elections move here and become a citizen.
Dav Posted October 15, 2004 Report Posted October 15, 2004 im not at all surprised by the results from isreail, the US fighting in the middle east and the relationship they have with the middle eastern nations has a great deal to do with that, as well as history.
Yupa Posted October 16, 2004 Report Posted October 16, 2004 If the WORLD could vote in the USA, we'd be a communist country or run by a supreme dictator. Know why? Because despite how stupid most Americans are, most people in the world are EVEN STUPIDER. That said, this poll does not involve the entire world, merely the following countries:CanadaFranceUKSpainRussiaJapanAustraliaMexicoIsraelSouth KoreaNow some of these countries shouldn't even !@#$%^&*ing HAVE an opinion: Spain: "Yes, we're tolerant, we even like Muslims, but not if they have beards or wear veils, because only TERRORIST MUSLIMS (same thing) wear veils and have beards - oh and by the way we'll help out with the war on terrorism, oh wait, nevermind - we had a train bombed and now we're too !@#$%^&*ing chicken!@#$%^&*, it's not like any countries have had anything as bad as a train bombing, after all." Russia: "No, no, nobody's shooting our school children, or bombing our cities, we have it all under control and no our gigantic weapons stockpiles (including the NUCLEAR variety) are not rotting away or being sold to nongovernment en-*BAD WORD*-ies - after all, it's not like we're irresponsible (cough)Chernobyl(/cough\)just about anything ever mentioned about Russia(/cough)." Israel: "Love thy neighbor...that is UNLESS some white dudes said that the land they've lived on (peacefully with our forefathers, by the way) for hundreds of years is in fact OUR land - then we need nuclear weapons and a huge warmachine donated by the US and others to kill them, build walls around them and keep them off OUR land." South Korea: "We just do what the US tells us to do (and download lots of music). Nothing good has come out of our country since M*A*S*H." The remaining countries aren't so bad, but Mexico is not a world power and Japan is practically an invention of the US where fads are only a couple years behind. Despite all this, it's good that most people apparently dislike Bush, because he's a dumb!@#$%^&* cokehead that's !@#$%^&*ing things up good at a time when things are (and indeed already were) in DIRE need of being SUPREMELY UN!@#$%^&*ed.
Arianax Posted October 16, 2004 Report Posted October 16, 2004 South Korea: "We just do what the US tells us to do (and download lots of music). Nothing good has come out of our country since M*A*S*H." Actually my guitar came from Korea, and despite that its quite nice. Just because Russia is 2nd world and has terrorist problems doesnt mean it shouldnt have an opinion, as far as i was Aware america has a little problem with terrorists as well, the UK has IRA, Spain-Basque seperatists etc. But yeah, it isnt surprising Russia and Isreal want to be best friends with america
Aileron Posted October 16, 2004 Report Posted October 16, 2004 Yep, everyone in the world has a right to their opinion...as long as it agrees with urs. It they don't, well, they are just ignorant. <_< And Akai, Spain has THE historically worst human rights record. They might not even have a problem not tolerating muslims. After all, Spain has gone through a lot of pain to ensure that their is only one culture in their country. More importantly, if that part of thier opinion, they are correct. We need to draw the line between muslim and terrorist. Without such a line, we must practice genocide, because we clearly need to remove terrorism from the world and if there is no line then all muslims are terrorists. Thus, the stated opinion by you is infact correct, general Muslims and Muslim terrorists are two seperate groups with two seperate agendas. Japan wasn't made by the US. Japan has a history of doing this when they encounter a nation stronger than themselves. When they encounter technological superiority, they learn the technology and impliment it in their society. They did this when Imperial Europe was invading the world, and they are doing it now. Japan agrees with the US because both nations are moving foward economically and pride hard work over government charity. Israel, hey if we wash their hands, they wash ours.
Yupa Posted October 16, 2004 Report Posted October 16, 2004 Actually my guitar came from Korea, and despite that its quite nice.Is it designed by a Korean company, or merely !@#$%^&*embled there? Just because Russia is 2nd world and has terrorist problems doesnt mean it shouldnt have an opinion, as far as i was Aware america has a little problem with terrorists as well, the UK has IRA, Spain-Basque seperatists etc.Sigh, the point is that they (the Russian government) constantly try to hide the fact that their country has all this crazy !@#$%^&* going on.
MasterDrake Posted October 16, 2004 Report Posted October 16, 2004 They openly admit it is and the US is trying to help them out by supplying them with massive amounts of funding
MonteZuma Posted October 18, 2004 Report Posted October 18, 2004 My opinion on the polls: The polls totally debunk the idea that global public reaction to the war in Iraq is based on anti-Americanism. 9 out of 10 countries have an unfavourable opinion of GWB9 out of 10 countries have worsened their opinion of the US in the last few years9 out of 10 countries think the invasion of Iraq was wrong BUT 9 out of 10 countries have a favourable opinion of Americans The plain and simple fact is almost everyone in the world, with the exception of Israel, thinks that GWB and his foreign policies suck. Why? Because they do. Americans will be doing themselves a huge favour and will make huge inroads in the war on terror by voting this militaristic !@#$%^&*clown out of office.
MasterDrake Posted October 18, 2004 Report Posted October 18, 2004 ok a dumb!@#$%^&* who doesn't lie or a idiot that makes false promises hmm
Aileron Posted October 18, 2004 Report Posted October 18, 2004 Hey, the policy of previous Presidents got us attacked by terrorists repeatedly. Your only criticism of Bush stems from going into Iraq without nice legal political niceties. The US is a sovereign en-*BAD WORD*-y...some times we will need to walk our own path. It may not be your path, but you should atleast accept the fact that we need to do this right now.
MasterDrake Posted October 18, 2004 Report Posted October 18, 2004 Just give up Ail they are just a bunch of hypocrites
Manus Celer Dei Posted October 18, 2004 Report Posted October 18, 2004 Your only criticism of Bush stems from going into Iraq without nice legal political niceties.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Those "political niceties" are kinda important. Lets think of a hypothetical situation: US invades country A using the logic that a preemptive strike is the only way to contain the threat. Threat turns out to be imaginary. Country B, having an overwhelmingly powerful military and a fear that the US will next turn their attentions to them, uses the same logic and invades the US. If the invasion of Iraq was acceptable, then the invasion of the US on the same grounds is also acceptable.
MasterDrake Posted October 18, 2004 Report Posted October 18, 2004 HAH I will I will nuke the world before I let my country be invaded
MonteZuma Posted October 18, 2004 Report Posted October 18, 2004 Hey, the policy of previous Presidents got us attacked by terrorists repeatedly.Heh. Probably. But I suspect that GWB and his rhetoric motivates more terrorists than any previous president. Your only criticism of Bush stems from going into Iraq without nice legal political niceties.Well my comments in this thread were only based on the poll, but I have plenty of other criticisms. The way Bush handles China and North Korea for example. The way he handles the United Nations. The idiotic and dangerous language that he uses. I think that this is probably reflected in the poll too, even though there were no questions directly pointed at these issues. Oh, and btw...I hate GWB's moronic childish grin The US is a sovereign en-*BAD WORD*-y...some times we will need to walk our own path. It may not be your path, but you should atleast accept the fact that we need to do this right now.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>Indeed. I think the world would be a happier and safer place if the US respected other's sovereignty and walked its own path without telling others how to walk and without stepping on the innocent little guy.
Dr.Worthless Posted October 19, 2004 Report Posted October 19, 2004 Heh. Probably. But I suspect that GWB and his rhetoric motivates more terrorists than any previous president.What do you mean probably? Oklahoma City.. USS Cole.. Original WTC attacks, Multiple emb!@#$%^&*y bombings... September 11'th happened what, a few months into bush's term? I do agree with the second statement.. if a person says "I'm going to hunt you down and kill you..." and has done it already to over 60% of the officials of a terrorist organization, I'm probably going to hop up attacks in hopes that I can frighten the guy off... I for sure wont sit on my !@#$%^&* and say "!@#$%^&*.. we've been had now..." Indeed. I think the world would be a happier and safer place if the US respected other's sovereignty and walked its own path without telling others how to walk and without stepping on the innocent little guy. I agree.. In hindsight mabye we should have just let hitler anal rape europe in the 40's and continue to throw a big finger to world politics.. Though knowing what we know now Hitler would have turned the US into a big pile of rubble.. but still. Ok, let me rephrase that.. We should have kicked hitlers !@#$%^&*, but we should have then retracted and threw a big finger to europe when they needed billions to rebuild. Stalin was over there, I'm sure he would have been nice enough to help rebuild france, england, and the other european countries. Ok so wait, thats not a good idea either.. Anywho... When you're top dog.. you can do no right..
MonteZuma Posted October 19, 2004 Report Posted October 19, 2004 What do you mean probably? Oklahoma City.. USS Cole.. Original WTC attacks, Multiple emb!@#$%^&*y bombings... September 11'th happened what, a few months into bush's term?I don't think all terrorist attacks against the United states are the direct result of the President of the day (or the day before!). 9/11 was obviously first planned when Clinton was in office. Some attacks against the US are probably not even related to government policy. The first WTC attack (1993) occured just one month into Clinton's term, so planning for that obviously started when Bush snr was in office. The Oklahoma attack (1995) was inspired by the Waco (1993) and had nothing to do with foreign policy and probably nothing to do with Bill Clinton. But I'm not talking about 9/11 or any prior attack. I'm talking about the probability and possibility of future attacks. I believe that almost everything GWB says and does fuels the anti-US terrorist cause and will lead to a bigger threat of terrorism in the future. Some of that is manifesting itself in Iraq, but othersmight not manifest themselves until a new president is in office. I do agree with the second statement.. if a person says "I'm going to hunt you down and kill you..." and has done it already to over 60% of the officials of a terrorist organization, I'm probably going to hop up attacks in hopes that I can frighten the guy off... I for sure wont sit on my !@#$%^&* and say "!@#$%^&*.. we've been had now..."Saying "i'm gonna hunt you down and kill you" is unnecessary and unhelpful bravado. The fight against terror needs to go on without inflaming hatred and violence and inspiring more terror attacks. I think Bush's tactic is to run an election campaign based on fear and jingoistic bravado. But I think the best way to fight the war is with a mix of compassion, understanding and steely resoluteness. I think the best people to lead that kind of fight is a liberal US government. I agree.. In hindsight mabye we should have just let hitler anal rape europe in the 40's and continue to throw a big finger to world politics.. Though knowing what we know now Hitler would have turned the US into a big pile of rubble.. but still. Huh? The problem with Hitler was that he did not respect other's sovereignty and did not walk his own path without telling others how to walk and without stepping on the innocent little guy. I'm not anti-war. I'm anti-war.in.Iraq. Hitler's !@#$%^&* needed to be kicked. Its a shame the US didn't acknowledge that until Pearl Harbour. Anywho... When you're top dog.. you can do no right.. Nobody was saying that immediately after 9/11. Everyone seems to be saying it after the invasion of Iraq. Why?
Dr.Worthless Posted October 19, 2004 Report Posted October 19, 2004 The original quote was Hey, the policy of previous Presidents got us attacked by terrorists repeatedly.To which you replied Heh. Probably. But I suspect that GWB and his rhetoric motivates more terrorists than any previous president. Then you state.. I don't think all terrorist attacks against the United states are the direct result of the President of the day (or the day before!).You've confused me.. to say the least. I believe that almost everything GWB says and does fuels the anti-US terrorist cause and will lead to a bigger threat of terrorism in the future. Some of that is manifesting itself in Iraq, but othersmight not manifest themselves until a new president is in office. The defining difference in GW's presidency, and presidencies of past, is he's taken a proactive roll in attacking terrorism, opposed to the reactive roll of administrations past. Is it a stretch to say that Terrorists are going to increase attacks in hopes that the US will stop actively hunting them? I would say no. Saying "i'm gonna hunt you down and kill you" is unnecessary and unhelpful bravado. The fight against terror needs to go on without inflaming hatred and violence and inspiring more terror attacks. I think Bush's tactic is to run an election campaign based on fear and jingoistic bravado. But I think the best way to fight the war is with a mix of compassion, understanding and steely resoluteness. I think the best people to lead that kind of fight is a liberal US government.I disagree. I believe taking the stance of "I'm going to hunt you down and kill you" is exactly what is needed to "win" (if the fight is even winable) this global conflict against terrorism. The "Fight against terror" isnt inflaming any additional hatred and violence.. it was already there. The same hatred and violence is what caused some men to hijack planes and fly them into buildings.. the same hatred and violence is what causes men to strap bombs to themselves and detonate them in populated areas. The same hatred and violence is what caused some men to take a building of school children hostage, then murder hundreds of them in cold blood. We can not fight this war with a mix of compassion and understanding. The people we are fighting HAVE no compassion, if given the chance they will rip our nuts off and make sure we choke to death on them. The enemy will not be fighting with any level of compassion or understanding, all they care about is the west, and its ideals, gone. Their track-record should make that blatantly clear. I do not feel that a liberal US government would have the resoluteness that you understand is needed in a global conflict of this magnitude. If we are to ensure our joint safety, as democratic nations, we are going to have to hunt the s!@#$%^&* of the earth down that would perform such acts as what has been performed, and wipe them from the face of the earth. We cannot be nice about it, we cannot be politically correct about it, if we show any weakness these people will exploit it.. its what they do. Huh? The problem with Hitler was that he did not respect other's sovereignty and did not walk his own path without telling others how to walk and without stepping on the innocent little guy. I'm not anti-war. I'm anti-war.in.Iraq. Hitler's !@#$%^&* needed to be kicked. Its a shame the US didn't acknowledge that until Pearl Harbour. My comment was in reference to Indeed. I think the world would be a happier and safer place if the US respected other's sovereignty and walked its own path without telling others how to walkI am starting to honestly believe that it would really be in the best interest of the US to pull out of world politics all together. We could easily influence it without an active military presence. But since ww2, the US has been the guard dog of freedom loving countries. Agree or disagree with the attack on Saddam Huessein, I do believe the world is safer without him. Weapons or not.. there's no possible way anyone could predict what he would do in the future, and judging by his past track record, I dont believe it would be a stretch to say it wouldn't be something beneficial to the world.. Saddam had to go, and I don't think anyone disagrees with that point. Nobody was saying that immediately after 9/11. Everyone seems to be saying it after the invasion of Iraq. Why? I think media has a big part of the general discontent of the world community toward the United States. Alot of people I discuss things with are horridly mis-informed about the facts surrounding the history of Iraq and the world community, and US activity/intentions in Iraq now. I attribute this to m!@#$%^&*-media spinning the actions going on in Iraq completely out of perportion. I suppose the only thing that the world community could be upset about is the supposed "Pre-emptive policy" that the US has made by invading Iraq. While I can agree that we more than likely did rush into Iraq.. given the intelligence that we had at the time I believe the President made the right decision to pe-*BAD WORD*-ion congress to give him the right to invade. I believe Congress made the right decision also. I do believe that France and Germany had reasons to oppose a war to remove Saddam Huessein, other than just disagree'ing with the principle of the pre-emptiveness of the invasion. Another thing I do believe is that after the goodwill and for-*BAD WORD*-ude that my country has shown all the countries of Europe throughout the last 70 years for them to forsake us, and not support us right, or wrong, in removing a viscious war-monger from power is a slap in the face and a blatant disregard for all this country has done in support of every country in Europe. To be honest, if any president in the near future was to propose a war against france, I would completely support it 100%. After all this country has done for France since WW2, for Chirac to completely turn his back on the US is completely unacceptable. Its one thing to disagree with a decision, its another thing to harbor discent and help spread the discent. What you are see'ing from Chirac, France, and Germany, is simply a power-play, a chance to thrust their names into inernational imporance. Sorry, Right or Wrong, Saddam had to go and this world is safer without him in it. Since we already ARE in Iraq.. it is in the world best interest for that country to be stable, with a stable government in it. For countries such as france and germany to still not support the actions in that country is a simple slap in the face. Neither country is interested in the cause of defeating terrorism, they are simply interested in see'ing the United States fail.
MonteZuma Posted October 19, 2004 Report Posted October 19, 2004 You've confused me.. to say the least.Some terrorist attacks are possibly inspired or encouraged by the policies, actions or words of a US president and some terrorist actions are inspired by other things. Does that clear things up? The defining difference in GW's presidency, and presidencies of past, is he's taken a proactive roll in attacking terrorism, opposed to the reactive roll of administrations past.I disagree. I think that GWB is the most reactive president in recent history. The "Fight against terror" isnt inflaming any additional hatred and violence.. it was already there. The same hatred and violence is what caused some men to hijack planes and fly them into buildings.. the same hatred and violence is what causes men to strap bombs to themselves and detonate them in populated areas. The same hatred and violence is what caused some men to take a building of school children hostage, then murder hundreds of them in cold blood. I agree that the hatred was there before. The fight against terror need not generate more hatred, but the way that Bush is fighting it is counterproductive, imo. We can not fight this war with a mix of compassion and understanding. Sometimes military action is necessary (eg Afghanistan). But compassion and understanding are also key ingredients. For example, if the US took more notice of the hardships facing the Palestinians in and around Israel, and helped do something about it, then there would be less anti-americanism in the middle east. The people we are fighting HAVE no compassion, if given the chance they will rip our nuts off and make sure we choke to death on them. Exactly. Those people need to be exterminated. Innocent people don't need to be exterminated, and they don't need to be told that they are evil just because they disagree with America's policies. We cannot be nice about it, we cannot be politically correct about it, if we show any weakness these people will exploit it.. its what they do. We both agree that terrorists need to be eliminated, but I think that this can be done, and in fact is best done, by being nice and being politically correct in places where it matters. It is a matter of choosing went to use diplomacy and when to use force. I think GWB and his staff are not good at making those decisions. Another thing I do believe is that after the goodwill and for-*BAD WORD*-ude that my country has shown all the countries of Europe throughout the last 70 years for them to forsake us, and not support us right, or wrong, in removing a viscious war-monger from power is a slap in the face and a blatant disregard for all this country has done in support of every country in Europe.I disagree that it is a slap in the face. Europe did support the US in Afghanistan. Much of Europe thought that the US was wrong to invade Iraq. I think the US should have respected their decision and sought help from those nations in other areas (like Afghanistan or other US areas of operation). To be honest, if any president in the near future was to propose a war against france, I would completely support it 100%. After all this country has done for France since WW2, for Chirac to completely turn his back on the US is completely unacceptable.Did the US and the allies free France from the Nazis or did they make them a slave of the USA? And did France turn their back on the US or did they just decide that an invasion of Iraq was wrong? Anyway. I thought your post was very interesting and, whilst I disagree with many points, you made me think a lot about the issue from some perspectives that I haven't thought about much before. Peace.
Dr.Worthless Posted October 19, 2004 Report Posted October 19, 2004 Did the US and the allies free France from the Nazis or did they make them a slave of the USA?Slave of the US? I'm not completely sure how to respond to the question. We did free France from German control, we also poured an unprecidented amount of money into the country to assist in rebuilding it. Furthermore we spent gobs and gobs of money to ensure that a power hungry Stalin didn't swoop through and take Hitler place. Now, In my opinion is France on the same level of political power that they were pre-WW2, not even close. Does that piss France off? In my opinion yes. Again, I'm not sure how to respond to the "slave" comment. The only thing I can possibly think of is that France has yet to really make a return to the "superpower" stage. To be completely honest, the power that the country was given in international politics (In my opinion) was purely a sign of respect. And did France turn their back on the US or did they just decide that an invasion of Iraq was wrong? Yes, they have turned their back on the US. Its completely understandable for the french to disagree with the decision that was made by GW. It was a tough decision no doubt, and not everyones going to agree with it. The key here is to judge the actions taken by the countries after the fact.. here and now is 1 year after the fact, and I don't think its doubtful in anyones mind that things would be going measurably better in Iraq if we had a large # of additional troops on the ground. Its in the best interest for the world community to see Iraq, now that Saddam is gone, a democratic nation that is a strong influence in the region. A true friend would say "Yeah US.. you !@#$%^&*ed up big time and it was a stupid move to invade Iraq, but not only is it in my countries best interest to see Iraq stable, I'm also going to be helping out an old friend thats been there to bail my !@#$%^&* out of a few tight spots before, how can I help?" When my friend gets sloppy drunk in a bar and picks a fight with a burly dude nicknamed "Killer".. I say "jesus christ that was a stupid move" but I swoop in and get my friend the !@#$%^&* out of the tight spot he was in. I disagreed with his choice of action, but the dude's been there enough for me that I'm willing to stick my neck out there and save his !@#$%^&*, at the cost of a potential !@#$%^&* kicking.
Recommended Posts